MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140210955 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-0513

Epigenetic Modifications in Double-Strand Break DNA Damage Signaling and Repair

2010· review· en· W2140210955 on OpenAlexafffund
Dorine Rossetto, Andrew W. Truman, Stephen J. Kron, Jacques Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA damageChromatinDNA repairBiologyCell biologyCell cycle checkpointHistoneG2-M DNA damage checkpointEpigeneticsCell cycleDNACancer researchCellGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors involved in the cellular response to double-strand break (DSB) DNA damage have been identified as potential therapeutic targets that would greatly sensitize cancer cells to radiotherapy and genotoxic chemotherapy. These targets could disable the repair machinery and/or reinstate normal cell-cycle checkpoint leading to growth arrest, senescence, and apoptosis. It is now clear that a major aspect of the DNA damage response occurs through specific interactions with chromatin structure and its modulation. It implicates highly dynamic posttranslational modifications of histones that are critical for DNA damage recognition and/or signaling, repair of the lesion, and release of cell-cycle arrest. Therefore, drugs that target the enzymes responsible for these modifications, or the protein modules reading them, have very high therapeutic potential. This review presents the current state of knowledge on the different chromatin modifications and their roles in each step of eukaryotic DSB DNA damage response.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.289
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations185
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207